JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:—Special leave granted.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants daughter Geetha married respondent No. 1 (original accused No. 1) sometime in October 1976 according to Hindu rites and thereafter left for Ireland. A daughter was born to the couple on July 27, 1978 in Ireland. She was named Nivedita. In April 1979, the couple along with the child moved to the United States of America; the child travelling on an Irish passport. In October, 1979 Geetha wrote to her mother, the appellant, expressing her desire that Nivedita should be brought up under her care in India. On the appellant expressing her willingness to look after the child, Nivedita was sent to India via Bombay where the appellant received her. The child then remained in the custody of the appellant. In March, 1980 Geetha returned to India presumably because her husband had developed intimacy with an American girl and had started to ill-treat her. Within a week after her arrival in India she committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Nivedita continued to remain in the care and custody of the appellant. The first respondent married the American girl, with whom he had developed intimacy, sometime in the year 1983-84 and embraced Christianity. Thereupon the appellant filed an application in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, being O.P. No. 203 of 1984, for appointing her as the guardian of the person of the minor child under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Respondent No. 1 entered an appearance in the said proceedings through his Advocate and sought time to file a counter. Later, he returned to India on December 14, 1984. After reaching India he obtained a duplicate passport for Nevedita and thereafter with the help of his associates picked up Nivedita from her school ignoring the protests of the Head Mistress of the School. The Head Mistress immediately filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police and informed the appellant about the same who in turn lodged a First Information Report in that behalf. On enquiry the appellants son traced respondent No. 1 and his three companions (who had assisted him in procuring the child) at the Madras Airport.. Despite his entreaties, respondent No. 1 forcibly took the child to U.S.A. via Singapore. Since then Nivedata is in the custody of respondent No. 1 and his newly married wife Maureen. After thus removing the child from the lawful custody of the appellant, respondent No. 1s Advocate withdrew from the guardianship proceedings. The Court, however, appointed the appellant as the guardian of the person of Nivedita. The appellant also filed a complaint alleging kidnapping against respondent No. 1 and his three companions who had aided and abetted him in the Court of the IVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which came to be numbered as C.C. No. 234 of 1985. Process was issued in the said proceedings and the accused persons were duly served. The respondents thereafter moved an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) for quashing the process on the plea that in law a father is entitled to his daughters custody and hence cannot be liable under S. 363, I.P.C. In that application the High Court directed that the child be produced before it. However, the child was not produced before the Court and the Court ultimately dismissed the application against which a Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court. This Court also rejected the Special Leave Petition. On the other hand while the application under S. 482 of the Code was pending in the High Court, the father of respondent No. 1 filed an application for rescinding the order appointing the appellant as the guardian of the person of Nivedita. In the meantime, the Superior Court in New Jersey, U.S.A., was moved which Court passed an order permitting respondent No. 1 to retain the custody of the child on the ground that the Indian Courts had